On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 02:32:04 -0000, wrote:

I seem to remember reading somewhere in this newsgroup that some
instrument rated pilots felt IFR was in fact easier than VFR. My
limited experience, some 10s of hours a year in IMC, with a rated and
current pilot is that his workload is very much under control. Most
times in IMC controller instructions come at most every few miles in
an approach, ditto departure. I'd enjoy hearing the opinions of others
who fly single pilot single engine instruments a lot.

I think it very much depends on the mission. I believe I fly a fair amount
of IFR (30-40 logged hrs/year in actual) for a GA pilot. I rarely require
an IPC for currency, although I do them from time to time.

For local flights, in familiar terrain, VFR is easier and less hassle.

For longer flights, especially in unfamiliar areas, IFR is a lot easier.

In certain situations, the plan is to do part of the flight VFR, and
perhaps the approach IFR.

Operationally, VFR may be "better" if you can go on a shorter route, or at
a more desireable altitude.

However, the ability to quickly obtain an IFR clearance removes virtually
all of the stress from flying VFR in marginal conditions.

Example: A trip from KEPM to N66 a week or so ago. Ground stations were
generally reporting 2-5 miles visibility in haze. The tops of the haze was
about 8,000'. Headwinds increased as one went higher. It was
uncomfortable flying in the haze (occasional turbulence, and warmer).

8,500' was an ideal altitude; as was a straight route rather than airways.
The plan was to fly VFR, and obtain an IFR clearance for the approach if
necessary.

About 100 miles short of the destination, it became apparent that I would
require an instrument approach at the destination.

I obtained my IFR clearance with an altitude of OTP, so I could remain at
8,500'.

At an appropriate point, I requested my return to a "hard" IFR altitude,
and received my approach clearance in due course.
--ron